Following fine in Italy, Belgian group sues Apple for warranty practices

Customers are entitled to a 2-year warranty, but Apple wants to sell AppleCare.

Consumer groups throughout Europe continue to take issue with Apple's warranty practices, even after Apple was fined by regulators in Italy. This time, it's a Belgian consumer group called Test-Aankoop, which filed a lawsuit against Apple for not complying with EU law and misleading customers about their warranty rights.

Test-Aankoop's complaint mirrors that of the one filed in Italy at the end of 2011. The basic gist is that EU law specifies that buyers should receive a warranty of at least two years for their electronics. Apple, however, offers a free one-year warranty on all its products from the date of purchase, and if users want to extend the coverage, they can purchase AppleCare to cover them for another two years.

The distinction is a minor but important one—Apple doesn't explicitly tell European customers about their right to a free two-year warranty and implies they must purchase AppleCare in order to get it. This is why Italy sued Apple for allegedly misleading customers, and it's also why Test-Aankoop has joined in. As noted by TNW, the organization argues in its suit that Apple is deliberately withholding information about the EU law because it wants to sell more AppleCare, and that Apple has been slow to respond to complaints.

Complaints about this issue have been picking up steam since Italy got the ball rolling in late 2011. A Portuguese consumer group announced its own plans to sue Apple over its warranty practices last July of 2012, and in October, the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding asked the EU's 27 member states to review whether Apple had properly advertised buyers' rights to a two-year warranty. Apple has already been fined more than $1.2 million in Italy for its advertising misdeeds, but as long as it continues to avoid telling European consumers about the two-year warranty, it looks like there could be more where that came from.

43 Reader Comments

Apple has already been fined more than $1.2 million in Italy for its advertising misdeeds, but as long as it continues to avoid telling European consumers about the two-year warranty, it looks like there could be more where that came from.

I'm reminded of that apology Apple seemed to have trouble giving during the Apple-Samsung case.

Being ignorant of the law is no excuse. It is not up to Apple to educate Europeans on what laws affect the people.

Deliberately misleading people as to their rights under the law is usually illegal, ie saying "we give a one year warranty" when you are required by law to give two. In the Italian case I believe they were accused of implying the the phone absolutely would not be under warranty after the first year unless the user bought the applecare plan. I'm sure they are not the only folks who do this.

Being ignorant of the law is no excuse. It is not up to Apple to educate Europeans on what laws affect the people.

I don't think Apple needs to tell people that they have a 2 year warranty until they sell them Apple Care. In that case since you are talking about warranty, all cards should be on the table. Withholding any information at that point can be construed as lying to the consumer.

Government fines of $1.2m to AAPL, GOOG or any other large multi-national company are hardly worth the companies effort to fight.

The fine should be proportional to the revenue made in whatever act they were punished for doing. In this case it should be all revenue AAPL made from applecare in Italy over the past 3-5 years (Be it $100,000 or $1,000,000,000) + damages of some sort.

Being ignorant of the law is no excuse. It is not up to Apple to educate Europeans on what laws affect the people.

Its illegal to offer one year warranty and state that consumers have to buy another product to extend it to 2 years. What the consumers know or not know is irrelevant, its called consumer protection, you might not have heard of it though, its quite the novelty.

Government fines of $1.2m to AAPL, GOOG or any other large multi-national company are hardly worth the companies effort to fight.

The fine should be proportional to the revenue made in whatever act they were punished for doing. In this case it should be all revenue AAPL made from applecare in Italy over the past 3-5 years (Be it $100,000 or $1,000,000,000) + damages of some sort.

Government fines of $1.2m to AAPL, GOOG or any other large multi-national company are hardly worth the companies effort to fight.

The fine should be proportional to the revenue made in whatever act they were punished for doing. In this case it should be all revenue AAPL made from applecare in Italy over the past 3-5 years (Be it $100,000 or $1,000,000,000) + damages of some sort.

... why "all" revenue?

Snarky answer: Why not?

Real answer: You have to note that it's all revenue made from the sale of Applecare and not all of the corporate revenue. The reason you'd go after all of the revenue from the one product is that the sales practices of that particular product are why Apple got in trouble in the first place.

It's a punitive action meant to "teach them a lesson" so that they don't flaunt the law so flagrantly in the future. It's supposed to show them that if they sell a product illegally we'll strip them of ALL of the profits of that product AND fine them on top... that way they're less inclined to do it again. Or so the theory goes.

Careful there. The "guarantee" that EU authorities are enforcing is not actually a guarantee. These were typically regulated by contract and at the discretion of the parties (e.g. car manufacturers offering 5-year or x miles guarantees). They also typically applied only to certain parts of the product.

The EU "guarantee" is actually a right of the consumer to purchase goods that are fit for their typical uses at the time of purchase. Defects that manifest within 2 years are presumed to have existed at the time of sale, though the presumption can be dismissed (seller's burden of proof).

In addition, being a legal "guarantee", consumers may enforce it against both the seller (e.g. retailer) and the manufacturer (e.g. Apple).

I think the problem with Apple's strategy here is that they're implying that consumers have no rights unless they purchase AppleCare. That is not true and is probably a misleading practice. It would be better that they say nothing at all, since AFAIK they aren't obligated to warn consumers of their rights under the law.

That said, the EU "guarantee" and Apple's AppleCare probably have different scopes. I've never owned Apple products so I can't tell for sure, but I believe AppleCare covers events such as accidental breakage, which the EU "guarantee" would not. It's up to consumers to decide whether they want those additional coverages.

it is true that Apple does not do much effort to tell Belgian consumers that they benefits from a 2 year warranty.But when purchasing Apple products, you can click on the AppleCare link on the bottom of the page (example in french here: http://www.apple.com/befr/support/products/ipad.html)

Just below the graphic showing you that with AppleCare, you receive a 2 year extension of the warranty, there is fine prits telling that this extension is in addition to the rights guaranteed by law ("La garantie limitée d'un an d'Apple et les avantages de l'AppleCare Protection Plan viennent s'ajouter aux droits garantis par la législation sur la consommation."). A link is provided for more details: http://www.apple.com/befr/legal/statutory-warranty/

This link gives clear information about the 3 warranties:- European law- Apple 1 year warranty- AppleCare

So I am not sure that Test-Ankoop (which by the way is also named Test-Achats for the french speakers) will win that battle.

Government fines of $1.2m to AAPL, GOOG or any other large multi-national company are hardly worth the companies effort to fight.

The fine should be proportional to the revenue made in whatever act they were punished for doing. In this case it should be all revenue AAPL made from applecare in Italy over the past 3-5 years (Be it $100,000 or $1,000,000,000) + damages of some sort.

... why "all" revenue?

Snarky answer: Why not?

Real answer: You have to note that it's all revenue made from the sale of Applecare and not all of the corporate revenue. The reason you'd go after all of the revenue from the one product is that the sales practices of that particular product are why Apple got in trouble in the first place.

It's a punitive action meant to "teach them a lesson" so that they don't flaunt the law so flagrantly in the future. It's supposed to show them that if they sell a product illegally we'll strip them of ALL of the profits of that product AND fine them on top... that way they're less inclined to do it again. Or so the theory goes.

Yes, I realize this. The previous poster said "all" revenue plus damages. The article says that Applecare provides 2 additional years of coverage (so 3 years overall), which is one additional year on top of what EU wants. So requesting "all" revenue already includes punitive damages from that extra year and adding "damages" on top of that is just plain silly imo.

In this case it should be all revenue AAPL made from applecare in Italy over the past 3-5 years (Be it $100,000 or $1,000,000,000) + damages of some sort.

Yes, I realize this. The previous poster said "all" revenue plus damages. The article says that Applecare provides 2 additional years of coverage (so 3 years overall), which is one additional year on top of what EU wants. So requesting "all" revenue already includes punitive damages from that extra year and adding "damages" on top of that is just plain silly imo.

Actually he said all revenue made from Applecare which would be MORE appropriate than all revenue. The damages bit... that's just icing on the punitive cake as it were.

It's pretty standard legal practice really: strip the profits from the illegal practice and then fine the crap out of them for doing it at all.

All they have to do is increase the basic warranty to 2 years. Just make it bare bones. Then offer an upgrade to Applecare for X amount of money. Then they wouldn't have to deal with this, they wouldn't have to support things older than two years (unless they buy a extended warranty).

The source is incorrect. Apple DID in fact include 2 year base warranties on all hardware sold in nations that required it, and it was even labled right on that packaging and in online documentation in most cases (in some cases, product intended for another nation was brought into that nation by 3rd party suppliers who did not appropriately add the correct (available) stickers to the packaging to note the change in terms when selling products across boarders, but apple did it correct in their own satores, and did honor 2 year warranties on all products sold in those nations correctly). The ONLY issue was the AppleCare packaging ITSELF, sold seperately, that incorrectly indicated a 1 year warranty and that Applecare added 2 more, while extending phone supprot from 90 days to 3 years for non-hardware-warranty issues.

Apple was fined for "misleading" consumers via applecare packaging that they only had one year, when in fact the product packaging DID indicate they had two years, and apple DOES provide 2 years warranty on units sold in those nations. That's why it was a slap on the wrist, and not a mandate to refund and extend warranties outright.

Apple should state that people have a two year warranty. What do other computer/electronics companies do?

They DO. They correctly state that in all product materials for that product, if and when that product was sold by apple into that nation directly (apple has no control if product was shipped to a nation with a 1 year warranty requirement, and then a 3rd party cross shipped it to another nation that requirs 2 without relabling the product). They DO fully honor 2 years warranties anytime a user has a receipt of purchase from a nation requiring 2 year warranties whether the product was so labled or not.

The only issue was AppleCare package labeling, which was never customized per-nation to note the difference. It was only on this package, not the original product, and not apple's actual warranty terms, that was EVER in question. Appls has followed actual warranty lenght correctly. AppleCare packaging is just mislabled (and mispriced) in some nations.

This is simple folks. Apple has always provided a 1 year (or longer if required by local law) full warranty. period. It also has applecare, which provides two more years in addition to the warranty provided by apple or law whichever is greater. The only issue is the package (for applecare) shows 1 year + 2 = 3 where in some cases it;s actually 2 years + 2 = 4. Packaging for those specific nations does appropriately indicate 2 year warranties (but occasionally, unists destined for other nations do end up in those nations are are thus mislabled, easy to do when flooring companies serve products to 10 nations most of which are smaller than US states). That is and has always been the sole confusion. Apple IS providing 2 year warranties with or without applecare in all nations it;s supposed to. It is providing FOUR year warranties to applycare buyers in those nations. It IS in the fine print both online and in the applecare policy.

Careful there. The "guarantee" that EU authorities are enforcing is not actually a guarantee. These were typically regulated by contract and at the discretion of the parties (e.g. car manufacturers offering 5-year or x miles guarantees). They also typically applied only to certain parts of the product.

The EU "guarantee" is actually a right of the consumer to purchase goods that are fit for their typical uses at the time of purchase. Defects that manifest within 2 years are presumed to have existed at the time of sale, though the presumption can be dismissed (seller's burden of proof).

In addition, being a legal "guarantee", consumers may enforce it against both the seller (e.g. retailer) and the manufacturer (e.g. Apple).

I think the problem with Apple's strategy here is that they're implying that consumers have no rights unless they purchase AppleCare. That is not true and is probably a misleading practice. It would be better that they say nothing at all, since AFAIK they aren't obligated to warn consumers of their rights under the law.

That said, the EU "guarantee" and Apple's AppleCare probably have different scopes. I've never owned Apple products so I can't tell for sure, but I believe AppleCare covers events such as accidental breakage, which the EU "guarantee" would not. It's up to consumers to decide whether they want those additional coverages.

Apple has insinuated NO SUCH THING. They offer 2 years in nations that require it. (read the fine print). Appel care adds 2 years to the default warranty. It is not a "3 year inclusive" it is simply a +2. So, in natiobns that have 2 year minimums, if you buy applecare, it;s a 4 year warranty.

Apple (as with most companies selling in the EU), do not make specific one-off packages for each and every unique nation (that is not required by EU law), so long as the warranty DOES exist and is honored. The issue has simply been the packaging for applecare does not, externally, make that disclaimer, and led to some consumer confusion, especailyl in 3rd party, non-apple stores. Apple does make one-off packaging for some nations, but not all. Also, not all boxed sold in belgum were manufacturer for belgum, and they're not commonly updated when crossing international lines (it;s not required either).

This is why is was a $1.2m fine, not a hundreds-of-millions fine. Apple was not ordered to unilaterally change the packaging, they were only required to provide appropriate education materials to salesmen (of their own and 3rd party) and to have proper in-store displays defining the warranty terms (which they do) in effected nations. That's it. This is so blown out of proportion it;s not funny anymore.

Still even when its just that only one offending product, Applecare, that misleaded customers about their government guaranteed two year warranty, its still illegal to do so.No matter how you color it, it still breaks the law.

Ok there are a lot of wrong statements here and the issue is also a little bit more diverse.

First off the EU has more of "guidelines". Countries within the EU have to adjust there laws to represent the minimum standards being laid out by those guidelines. For example Germany pretty much goes by the book where I believe Great Britain actually offers some better guarantee by law.

The guidlines provide a 2 year guarantee from the reseller. This is important because Apple might not always be the direct reseller. In fact Berlin still doesn't even have an Apple store, although being one of the most important Metropolis in the EU. The guidelines state that every defect that shows up within the first 6 months after purchase has to be proven by the reseller to be an defect caused by the user. After those 6 months it get's all reversed. Now the user has to prove it was already defective. This might seem pretty hard to do, but when you really look at it, unless you obviously spilled some coffee or so on your Laptop and have it scratches beyond recognition, resellers will not ask questions because it would be too much of a hassle anyway.

Apple has always offered a full year of warranty free of charge. No matter how your Notebook looks you would get a free repair even after those 6 months.

Apple Care does increase this to a full 3 year period. Now for some road warriors this might actually be a good thing, because some resellers might not give you a warranty after 6 months, because they say it is defective because of mis use. This is very unlikely though.

Apple in fact correctly states all of this on their website and even in their stores.

The biggest issue is actually the staff. They are not trained for the warranty/guarantee law within their country and they (most of the time) state that the warranty Apple provides is longer and better, then those 6 months. Also a huge problems arrises from the nomenclature: the EU "law" provides a guarantee, while Apple talks about a warranty. I guess there is a difference and this is adding to the confusion.

I used to do tech support for a company in the stairlift industry. We provided support for the entire globe from the UK. We offered 2 year warranty in europe and 1 year warranty in US in accordance with local laws, however we only provided a 1 year warranty in the UK, I once asked "isn't the UK in Europe" and was told as long as noone questions we will provide as little warranty as possible.

We also used to allow US citizens to install a stairlift themselves, heaps of times they would short the machine and fry the circuitboard on installation, then we'd charge the $700 for a board that cost us $40 (20 pounds).

No help at all from a judicial point of view: a sentence in an EU country does not constitute a precedent in another EU country. But while governments are trying to slow down the integration process, common feeling is quickly going toward integration. As a consequence, a class action in an EU country will probably led to a similar class action in another EU countries.

As so often I think again that someone at Apple must be doing a crap job. Yes, you can squeeze out a bit more profit here and there by acting like an asshole but the indirect *costs* of that are immense. Apple has managed to gain a reputation as a company that makes great hardware with somewhat stalling software that behaves like an asshole. I own a few Apple products (and surely like them), but the company itself is just hateful. Whatever I bought from Apple I bought with gritted teeth. If I could have bought it elsewhere I would have bought it elsewhere. The warranty situation here in Europe is actually pretty clear and Apple still waits to be dragged before a court in every single country before grudgingly doing the least they are required to do. And even then it tries hard to give the impression that this warranty is somehow second-class. It's almost as if someone there has the job of pissing customers off at any opportunity.